Re: [PATCH] mm, memcg: sync allocation and memcg charge gfp flags for THP

[Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>]

On 03/18/2015 04:59 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 18-03-15 16:40:34, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 03/18/2015 04:02 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Wed 18-03-15 15:34:50, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>>> On 03/16/2015 03:08 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>> @@ -1080,6 +1080,7 @@ int do_huge_pmd_wp_page(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>>>   	unsigned long haddr;
>>>>>   	unsigned long mmun_start;	/* For mmu_notifiers */
>>>>>   	unsigned long mmun_end;		/* For mmu_notifiers */
>>>>> +	gfp_t huge_gfp = GFP_TRANSHUGE;	/* for allocation and charge */
>>>>
>>>> This value is actually never used. Is it here because the compiler emits a
>>>> spurious non-initialized value warning otherwise? It should be easy for it
>>>> to prove that setting new_page to something non-null implies initializing
>>>> huge_gfp (in the hunk below), and NULL new_page means it doesn't reach the
>>>> mem_cgroup_try_charge() call?
>>>
>>> No, I haven't tried to workaround the compiler. It just made the code
>>> more obvious to me. I can remove the initialization if you prefer, of
>>> course.
>>
>> Yeah IMHO it would be better to remove it, if possible. Leaving it has the
>> (albeit small) chance that future patch will again use the value in the code
>> before it's determined based on defrag setting.
>
> Wouldn't an uninitialized value be used in such a case?

Yeah, but then you should get a (correct) warning :)

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>